Opinion Three Cheers for the Patriarchy - Feminists rage against the male-dominated world while enjoying all the wonders and security it has provided

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
theamericanconservative.com / archive

Three Cheers for the Patriarchy​

Feminists rage against the male-dominated world while enjoying all the wonders and security it has provided.

Casey Chalk
Jul 26, 202212:01 AM

No Apologies: Why Civilization Depends on the Strength of Men, by Anthony Esolen, (Regnery: May 2022), 204 pages.

My second grade teacher, Mrs. Heron, once called me a sexist. I had claimed that boys were better than girls at all the sports I knew: baseball, football, and kickball, dodgeball, basketball, and soccer. And that opinion, I was told in front of twenty-five fellow classmates, was verboten.

But even to an eight-year-old in 1991, wasn’t it undeniable? The boys were bigger and more aggressive. They ran faster. They threw harder and could kick the ball farther. I saw it everyday on the playground. What was wrong with stating the obvious? It wasn’t like I was saying all girls were worse at everything. I even knew some girls were more athletic than many boys. But any fool could see that if the best boys faced the best girls at any of those sports, it would be a rout.

Nevertheless, even then, with the Cold War winding down in the latter years of George H.W. Bush’s presidential term, an irrational gender ideology that told little boys and girls to ignore, if not deny, the realities of biology was seeping into American public schools. Little did I know it had already affected an entire generation of college graduates. Thirty years later, it now dominates all of America’s elite institutions. Indeed, questioning it could even get you fired. Millions of Americans are told, nay coerced, to refute the testimony of their eyes.

Anthony Esolen, author and writer-in-residence at Magdalen College of the Liberal Arts, wants America to regain its eyesight. He attempts this project in his No Apologies: Why Civilization Depends on the Strength of Men by means of setting scenes. He is, after all, a former English professor and a commended translator of Dante. Esolen sets scenes from The Epic of Gilgamesh, Homer’s Odyssey, Milton’s Paradise Lost, and a wide swath of other literature that has informed the Western tradition and its conception of the sexes. Perhaps provoking our imagination is an effective if underemployed strategy for bringing us to our senses.

Not that Esolen’s treatise is short on reason, appealing in particular to our common sense. Rather than having me ham-handedly attempt to summarize his scenes, let us instead consider his arguments. “Look around you,” he exhorts us. “Every road you see was laid by men. Every house, church, every school, every factory, every public building was raised by the hands of men.” He cites simple biological realities: a man's heart is twice as big as a woman’s and fills his blood with more oxygen; that man sweats much more freely than a woman does. Or, put simply:

You can have your own politics or your own social theories—perhaps. But try as you may—and these days a lot of people are trying very hard—you cannot have your own biology. You cannot have your own physics. That block of stone does not care for democratic or egalitarian ideology.

The U.S. women’s national soccer team were confronted with that reality when they lost to an under-15 boys squad (who, according to a photo-op, were taller and bigger than the women).

Of course, to observe such things is to be labeled a perpetuator of toxic masculinity and the patriarchy. Esolen refers to these ideologically-motivated ad hominems as akin to “someone sprinkling a bit of strychnine in the soup—not enough to kill, but certainly enough to make the diner sick.” Boys are told they are bad if they are aggressive, if they exhibit the kinds of traits males have manifested for thousands of years. “Telling boys these things is poisonous, and I daresay it is intended to be so: those who speak this way want the boys to be weaklings, to despise their own sex, to doubt their natural and healthy inclinations.”

It’s also a recipe for societal disaster. The more males are castigated and punished for being themselves, the more we will descend into a nation of weaklings. Boys in particular are being overmedicated, a worrying trend in a society in which testosterone levels are in precipitous decline. And it’s not just the medication and conformist anti-male pressures placed upon boys in grade schools. It’s the fact that more than a quarter of children are raised in a home without a father. And porn addiction, which weakens male libidos and undermines healthy male-female relations, is still on the rise. “No such nation is long for this world,” Esolen warns.

In one sense, it’s self-defeating. The more feminist elites try to throw off the “shackle” of patriarchal norms, the worse things end up getting for women. Esolen explains:

Patriarchy—government by fathers—is a victory over the male domination and the male irresponsibility you inevitably get when women attempt to take over male executive roles. When the patriarchs are missing, what you get from the boys is either aggressive disobedience or underachievement and waste. And then you get unhappy girls who despise the boys they have helped to form. The girls, too, go bad, because the sexes are made for each other, and you cannot corrupt one without corrupting both.

Look at any contemporary or historical society that has broken down into violent chaos, and you will typically see a society with large numbers of young men from broken or unstable families, with few opportunities to divert their testosterone towards familial or productive vocational obligations: Somalia, Mexico, Yemen, El Salvador, Congo, Afghanistan.

Critics of the patriarchy and the attendant sin of “toxic masculinity” are typically oblivious of this. For example, Esolen cites author Margaret Atwood, who imagines a patriarchal dystopia while writing from the safety of her own in Canada—a land carved out of the wilderness by the very men she despises. And he identifies an infantilizing woke culture that believes in magic: there is the “bad magic” of amorphous demons like sexism, patriarchy, and toxic masculinity that must be exorcized for societal “progress”; and there is the good magic of wishful thinking, assuming all modern amenities we enjoy will simply continue—electricity, running water, and the global shipment of goods via trucks and ships. What unites the two is a damning ignorance of the fact that it is precisely the kinds of men they censure for “toxic masculinity” who make this world run.

“Men and women are made for one another,” notes Esolen. “I believe it, because it is in front of my nose, and I will not let any ideology compel me to pretend that I do not see what is right there to see.” My second-grade self would have agreed. Boys and girls are different, but they also need each other, both for their own happiness, and their own propagation. As much as that is true, we must consequently recognize that the more we corrupt one sex, the more we will corrupt the other. “Male and female stand and fall together.”

Esolen’s book is then a sobering warning: the more women fail to see men as they truly are, the less they will be able to see themselves. Or, by extension, the less they will be able to preserve the gifts won for them by generations of patriarchy.

Casey Chalk writes about religion and culture issues for The American Conservative and is a contributing editor for the New Oxford Review. He is the author of The Persecuted: True Stories of Courageous Christians Living Their Faith in Muslim Lands (Sophia Institute Press).
 
Hip hip make me a sammich
Hip hip in an apron and nothing else
Hip hip bring a beer too
 
Why was it ever necessary for men to "give" women rights?
Men are overwhelmingly the ones at the actual levers of power in the first place.

In practice, rights are only as valid as they're able to be enforced. What men at large have done is agree to enforce the allowance of women to do more than they might have been able to do in the past.

Who do men ask for their rights?
Their fists, fundamentally-- or something equally respected.
 
Last edited:
He said traditional. 1800s is pretty traditional.

I'm just asking for some consistencies on traditional trappings here. Does he mean 1980s traditional? He was very vague and that's a feminine trait, so I just wanted some clarity.
Clearly when I asked you to not be a moron I was asking for to much.
 
Worked construction for seven years and saw exactly one woman on the job site that wasn't A) housekeeping getting shit ready for the homeowner to walk through B) bringing their husbands and friends lunch or C) the realty company's agent showing people around.

So yeah, women do work construction. There just aren't a lot of them that do such work. I would be willing to bet they're less than 5% of the construction work force, same way they're the minority in every other dangerous and uncomfortable manual labor job like garbage collectors, plumbers, electricians, road crews, oil rig crews, mining, etc. etc. etc.
 
My second grade teacher, Mrs. Heron, once called me a sexist. I had claimed that boys were better than girls at all the sports I knew
But even to an eight-year-old in 1991, wasn’t it undeniable? The boys were bigger and more aggressive. They ran faster. They threw harder and could kick the ball farther.
I agree with the overall message, but I don't know about this part. More aggressive, sure, but prepubescent boys are often smaller than girls their age. At eight, if boys have any advantage at all, it's incredibly slight. This sounds like one of those bullshit "from the mouths of babes" stories. I'm surprised he didn't include the part where Einstein gives him 20 dollars.
Why was it ever necessary for men to "give" women rights? Who do men ask for their rights?
Men create rights via conquest and toil. By building nations and creating laws. By defending their nations with their lives.

Women acquire rights by asking for them, no strings attached.

It's a bit different.
 
Worked construction for seven years and saw exactly one woman on the job site that wasn't A) housekeeping getting shit ready for the homeowner to walk through B) bringing their husbands and friends lunch or C) the realty company's agent showing people around.

So yeah, women do work construction. There just aren't a lot of them that do such work. I would be willing to bet they're less than 5% of the construction work force, same way they're the minority in every other dangerous and uncomfortable manual labor job like garbage collectors, plumbers, electricians, road crews, oil rig crews, mining, etc. etc. etc.
Bring me some actual numbers and then I might consider listening to you.
 
Women can and are more capable than you want to believe.
Generally not as capable as men, when it comes to physical labor.

They're not even interested in those jobs to begin with, which is why they're heavily underrepresented in them and why there's no push to "rectify" said "imbalance" compared to the very clear pushes in other (white collar) fields.
 

Terrifying, isn't it?

FIU pedestrian bridge collapse.jpg


The same sort of bullshit Look We Employ Girls promotional photos were front and centre of the Florida International University pedestrian bridge project, to the point where you could be forgiven for thinking it was an all-female team... until it shattered and collapsed in place while being delivered, killing motorists and workmen up top during the difficult bit.

A lethal combination of hubris, senior management corruption, and a culture of Say Nothing If You Want To Keep Your Job resulted in the concrete over-stressing at the construction site then subsequently imploding at the delivery site. The ridiculously heavy design of the free standing decorative "boat mast" didn't help matters, and in several instances along the way people checking the blueprints couldn't immediately work out if it was redundant mass or not...

There aren't a surfeit of lady engineers working hands on construction jobs. Companies like to pretend there are for PR purposes, for whatever inexplicable reasons. And then when things go horribly wrong they like to pretend their All Girls All The Time promotional material never existed, and call upon the Great Gods Of Debunking to muddy the waters after the event with their Mostly Falses and the like.

With all things, when you pin your ideology to the mast that ideology takes a fall with it, and no amount of pissing and moaning and calling people names changes that. People scoff at the idea of lady engineers precisely because of this sort of thing.
 
He said traditional. 1800s is pretty traditional.

I'm just asking for some consistencies on traditional trappings here. Does he mean 1980s traditional? He was very vague and that's a feminine trait, so I just wanted some clarity.
I was talking about women being expected to be stay at home housewifes looking after the kids, but we can bring back the drunken wife beating if that's your kink.
 
Last edited:
All I'm asking for is consistency. Just don't be hypocrites by rejecting all the traditional trappings of being a woman and still expect men to always make the first move, pay for dates and be the primary breadwinner.
Maybe I just know full sensible middle aged women but most of the happier couples I know have settled into pretty equal relationships which still acknowledge differences. We contribute money equally, I do the laundry and the gardening and he does anything that needs grip or strength. Because he’s shit at laundry and I’m small.
There are huge differences between the sexes, but these days even to say that seems forbidden. ‘Men are on average better st sport’ is simply true. That doesn’t mean there’s no value in womens sport - we enjoy doing it. Like there’s bantam weight boxers, and Sunday football pub teams. You don’t have to world class to make playing worthwhile. Yet you can’t say that.
They do. Because we have power tools now and a lot of the job is skill rather than brawn alone. A woman I know does architectural plaster restoration (I live somewhere with a lot of old houses.) she knows plenty of female tradies but all are in the skilled lighter stuff. But the majority of jobs that need brute strength are still overwhelmingly male.
Machinery has changed what’s needed to do the job. Example: power steering. When I learned to drive, it barely existed and big vehicles were really hard to drive. You had to haul the wheel around. Even the car I learned in was one you had to really push/pull the wheel around. Now massive vehicles have power steering and I see a lot of young women driving. The tech has levelled things off a bit. I wouldn’t have been able to safely steer a massive vehicle then - now it’s light touch controls so strength isn’t an issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom